A discussion on the defeat of the proposal to establish an Australian Republic.

Rape of the Australian Republic

by - Ian C. Purdie

INTRODUCTION:

Yesterday, 6th November, 1999 was to be the most historic day in my life.
After 50 years of active involvement in Australian politics (both sides
- as I was brought up in a Liberal * household) I realized a near life
long ambition. This was to vote for an Australian Republic at a referendum
held for that purpose.

* In Australia Liberal equates to U.S. Republicans or
the U.K. Conservatives, while Labor equates to U.S. Democrats and U.K.
Labor.

It is now a matter of history this referendum was defeated. It required
a majority vote in a majority of states to succeed. It failed dismally.

As a consequence, today I honestly feel as if I have suffered a death
in the family. I am not alone with this feeling of betrayal by my fellow
Australian brothers and sisters.

Never in 50 years of electoral wins and defeats have I been so profoundly
affected by an election result.

Again I am not alone in these feelings and I expect the long term consequence
will be felt for years to come. People in other lands, notably the U.K
as well as the U.S.A., must be truly perplexed by the result of this referendum.

DEFINITION:

republic
/ruh'publik/ noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in
the
body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives
chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons, etc.,
viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state, especially a democratic
state, in which the head of the government is an elected or nominated
president, not a hereditary monarch. [L r[emacr ]spublica (abl.
r[emacr ]public[amacr ]) state, lit., public matter]

THE BEGINNING:

Personally, I believe the the push toward an Australian Republic most likely
had its genesis on 26th January, 1788 when the "first fleeters" arrived,
mostly as wretched convicts in chains. Certainly the republican movement
was in full force with the mini revolt at the "Eureka Stockade" in 1854.
It would also be a fair bet our famous Ned Kelly was also a republican
at heart. History reveals the ordinary working people of Australia during
the last century were definitely not all ardent fans of H.M. Queen Victoria.

Many were however, indoctrinated into a culture of respecting "their
betters".

Little would have changed in the first half of this century because,
excepting the many people from Irish, Scottish or Welsh backgrounds (they
were the majority), everyone else was "British to the bootstrap", unfortunately
they were also the ones firmly in control.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN:

The final chapter of this century saw tentative moves toward a republic
when the setting up of a Republican Advisory Committee in April 1993 by
then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, caused a storm with its designated purpose
being how to become a republic rather than if we should become a republic.

Subsequently this culminated with an electoral promise by Paul Keating
at the 1996 election to hold a constitutional
convention if he were successful at that election. This promise was
"sort of" matched by the then Opposition Leader John Howard.

History again records that Keating was soundly beaten by Howard at that
election. Howard, an avowed monarchist, found himself obliged to honour
an election pledge to form a constitutional convention.

John Howard did indeed "sort of" honour that "sort of" pledge. The convention
which ensued was structured in such a fashion as, in my opinion, it would
be most difficult to gain a consensus of opinion from a wide cross section
of the community who should have participated in an "informed" debate on
"what kind of republic".

"NOBBLE" THE RUNNERS:

Cynics have long held the view you should never hold an inquiry unless
the terms of reference guarantee a predetermined outcome. Many would argue
this was in fact the case with the constitutional convention of February,
1998.

Dedicated monarchists were invited to discuss proposed republican models.
My own opinion is, notwithstanding the constraints imposed upon them, the
final outcome by the participants was the absolute best one could expect.

With one or two rat bag exceptions, all participants made magnificent
contributions and indeed many rose above themselves to reveal true statesmanlike
characteristics. The youngsters in particular, made stunning contributions.

AUSTRALIA'S AVID PARTICIPATION:

I watched this lively convention all day, every day only to be thwarted
daily at 3.00 p.m. by ABC-TV.

On this historic and solemn occasion, ABC-TV honoured it's charter by
punctually discontinuing the historic convention and commencing children's
programs (Sesame Street) at that time.

Complaints to ABC-TV only elicited the response - "the average Australian
mother must NOT, under our charter, be deprived of her electronic baby
sitter".

So much for our sense of history. Then again, this series of debates
over the future of a nation was probably soundly beaten in the T.V. ratings
by the 2.30 a.m. "Home Shopping" program on commercial T.V. Such is the
deep involvement of the average Australian in current affairs.

This distinct lack of interest, coupled with the inevitable ignorance,
would prove to be quite profound come referendum day.

At the time of the convention quite extensive coverage was given by
the media as a whole. For the population at large this served only
to unduly interfere with their sports results in the print media, whilst
in the electronic media, the commercials would prove infinitely much more
interesting. So much for your sense of destiny.

THE RECOMMENDATION:

Essentially this was to sever ties with the anachronistic British crown,
delete word "governor - general" and insert word "president".

A number of direct election delegates were so totally unimpressed and
alienated that they selfishly (my opinion) vowed to destroy any success
at a future referendum. True blue republicans.

This is a promise they have certainly since made good, to act as "spoilers".
May future generations forgive them, I certainly will not.

ESSENTIALLY:

Instead of the long standing protocol whereby governors' - general were
appointed, solely upon the advice of the Prime Minister of the day, a balanced
committee now representing all political parties, as well as citizens of
high esteem would receive nominations from the Australian people.

This committee would then make a final single recommendation to the
Prime Minister, to be agreed upon by the Leader of the Opposition AND then
be confirmed by a two-third majority of parliament. Essentially a minimalist
system of republic.

The reason for the evolution of the minimalist proposal was, in my view,
a perfectly valid compromise or acceptable balance between those who did
not want to disturb the existing proven system of governance against those
who passionately wanted an Australian head of state. That is; not a radical
departure from the existing system.

Interestingly, I am convinced that had a radical change been recommended,
then it also would have failed at the referendum for fears of leaping into
the unknown and untried. Don't believe the polls. Come to the crunch on
voting day, a radical proposal such as a direct election model would have
fared much worse than the minimalist model did. Think long and carefully
about that.

I am utterly convinced the Australian people would never have accepted
a radical overhaul of their constitution. The direct election slogans were
simply uninformed knee jerk reaction to jingoist slogans.

STUPIDITY VERSUS THE POSSIBLE (OR THE PROBABLE):

Had the direct election advocates gracefully accepted the majority vote
of the constitutional convention, supported the YES
campaign unconditionally, then Australia would today be on the road to
becoming a republic. It is their failure and intransigence alone which
I think will in time cause voters a great deal of angst, when they finally
reflect on the consequences of having cast their NO
vote. The only real opposition to our republic would have been the monarchists
who could never successfully articulate their case.

Direct election never was and never will be a real possibility, the
obstacles are too insurmountable.

If you personally advocate direct election, yet voted NO
to torpedo YOUR REPUBLIC OF AUSTRALIA,
then why couldn't you have voted YES
and; continue your campaign from within for direct election?

Why did you pick up your bat and ball and go home? Why did you rat on
Australia?

If you are a monarchist then I respect your views. I agree to disagree
with you.

DIRECT ELECTION FLAWS

The heartfelt yearning for a Republic of Australia is no reflection on
the British crown, merely an acknowledgement that some things belong to
a bygone era.

Significantly, the direct election advocates could not produce any satisfactory
model which would unconditionally guarantee the position of president would
not be politicized. They failed, they failed quite miserably. They still
fail to acknowledge, that none of our esteemed past governors-general would
have allowed his name to be put forward if it was to be for a politicized
position.

To effect such a massive change in government as a directly elected
president, would require the comprehensive re-writing of the Australian
constitution, clear delineation of powers of the president, the prime minister
and the parliament. Such a task, in my view, is nigh an impossibility.

A thought provoking "Geoffrey Robertson Hypothetical" on the Australian
constitution several years ago elegantly highlighted the near impossibility
of merely updating or modernizing our constitution. That was without even
considering such a massive rewrite as would obviously become necessary
to accommodate a directly elected president, with all the required divisions
of power.

The failure of the direct election advocates at the constitutional convention
to convince their co-delegates, merely underscores what is clearly the
tip of the iceberg in gaining consensus of opinion. That is even before
we involve whole herds of constitutional lawyers. Put two of them together
and you get four opinions.

Irrespective of those insurmountable problems there are many people,
myself included, who simply don't want a politicized position of president.
It must not only be above politics but "seen" to be above politics.

Direct election must by definition encompass a politician as a candidate.
The U.S. experience is such that only those financially well off in a big
way or, those with substantial financial backing can hope to reach the
top of the list of candidacy.

The selling point that "a little Aussie battler" could aspire to such
a direct election position, while undoubtedly a very romantic notion, is
patently ridiculous. It is absurd. It is fanciful. It is unbelievably naive.

Direct election is a fine slogan to seduce those who neither understand
or are unwilling to seek the most basic education in governance at all
its levels, the potential difficulties and pitfalls involved and the massive
changes to that governance. For Australians this would entail, on the day,
an unacceptable quantum leap into the wide unknown. If a minimalist proposal
proved so devastatingly unacceptable to the Australian people what chance
a radical change getting up?

Having said that, I expect I am to be labelled another one of those
so called "elitist republicans", about whom so much has been written in
recent weeks and months.

The truth is: I am just another knock about lad who originated from
Sydney's western suburbs and apart from an assortment of formal technical
qualifications, I was educated in the "hard school of life". So much for
the "chardonnay set" theory. V.B. - Yes
(see postscript)

THE REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN:

When the republic referendum began in earnest, the direct election advocates
had already formed an unholy alliance with the monarchists to defeat this
minimalist proposal. The above minimalist model was portrayed in my view,
with great evident distortion and manifest deceit,

AS:

"the politicians' republic"

.

Significantly, the monarchists alone, also with calculated deceit, NEVER
once to my knowledge, publicly defended the monarchy or its role in a modern
Australia. Obviously that would have been fatal to a united cause of "down
with the republic".

The unholy alliance simply maintained an ongoing scare campaign of short,
yet repetitive slogans to reinforce fear, doubt and scepticism. Rarely
was there any rational debate. Total reliance was placed on the 15 - 30
second repetitive TV commercials. For once the media attempted to be informative,
even educational in a few instances.

Interestingly, the NO campaign appeared to be financially able to run
three times as many T.V. commercials and newspaper advertisements as compared
to the republican movement. My comments above about financial backing and
a directly elected president rings bells in my mind.

VOTERS INFORM THEMSELVES:

The government as is the usual custom, issued at great cost, to each household
a booklet outlining the YES - NO cases as provided by the respective representatives
for each campaign. Included in this booklet was a comprehensive reprint
of the Australian constitution, with proposed amendments printed in full.

To date, I have met NO ONE apart from myself, who bothered to
read this booklet. The confessed NO voters I have encountered so far (seems
to be everybody but me) have all quite frankly told me the booklet was
too boring and was immediately consigned to the rubbish bin.

This is called obtaining an informed opinion. Throw out the facts (both
sides) and simply place total reliance upon T.V. commercials and talk back
radio. This is how you decide the destiny of your nation for generations
to come, a bit like considering the purchase of your lunch today.

A further burden to the republican cause was the stance taken by the
Prime Minister, a self admitted monarchist and a man whose position guarantees
significant influence. Instead of standing back in a statesmanlike manner
and being even handed, he used every opportunity to "muddy" the waters.
I believe, unfortunately for John Howard, his medium term prospects are
quite bleak. Far too many of his party colleagues, whilst conservatives,
are die hard republicans. Already I hear the political knives sharpening.

John Howard's assured place in history will unfortunately be inglorious.
This is for a man who, although I disagreed with his political philosophy,
I admired for his stance on guns and over Timor.

WOULD HISTORY REPEAT?:

Ironically in the last weeks of the referendum campaign, ABC-TV screened
a particularly excellent series depicting our mothers and fathers of Federation
100 years earlier. I wonder just how history will come to judge the NO
campaigners in the year 2099? Most unkindly I would imagine.

ON REFERENDUM DAY:

On election day I manned an election booth nearby to my home. Here the
people voted an overwhelming NO (about 58%).

Unlike our traditional elections which decide the fate of governments,
where all too frequently they are decided by the hip pocket nerve, this
referendum and; here I'm basing my impressions purely upon the comments
and questions I received on the day, revealed to me a deep level of ignorance
by voters of even the most basic issues involved. Few had any real idea
of our system of government.

That is not an elitist view, simply a most obvious statement of fact.

The vote for my total respect for the day must go to a wonderful, frail
little old lady who articulated her monarchist views quite well.
She was honest, informed and refreshingly, politely forthright.

THE FUTURE:

Attempts will of course be made to revive the "dead horse". The myopic
direct election advocates will, over the next few years or decades, disintegrate
and infight as they eternally try to come to grips with the difficulties
of an acceptable yet workable model. Nothing will come of it. The bird
has flown, the chance was fleetingly held in the palm of our hands and
certainly lost for my generation, all because the direct election advocates
didn't want to understand the first definition of politics: "Politics
- the art of achieving that which is possible".

I suspect the final outcome may well be sometime in the future, when
Prince Charles succeeds to the throne. Then republican pressure throughout
the United Kingdom will force King Charles III to abdicate.

In this circumstance, Australia would have to hurriedly cobble together
a republic in an atmosphere of crisis.

Alternatively, King Charles III could of course be offered sanctuary
as well as Australian citizenship. Monarchists would be over the moon and
"Woman's Day" sales would go through the roof.

1. At the same time as I wrote
the above page I also wrote a letter
to the editor of the "Daily Telegraph" in Sydney. This letter was printed
Monday 8th November and presumably on grounds of conserving space, was
edited by removing about the middle 70%.

Unfortunately, as a consequence, my principal
point i.e. an "ill informed" electorate was totally lost.

2. Quite a number of people
have taken the time to write to me by email and I thank them. One of the
most thought provoking email letters
came from Graham Paterson on 12th January, 20003. Postscript 9th March,
2000 - As I write this postscript it has been universally conceded
in recent days, that in the U.S. Primaries the principal candidates, both
Democrat and Republican, have each already spent $US 100 million on their
respective campaigns. Is this what the avid "direct electionists" (DE)
want for our country?

There is absolutely NO way the DE's can avoid
these fundamental issues:

Any direct election involves "politicising" the office
of President.

Any person so elected with a popular mandate ultimately
must become in conflict with the Prime Minister of the day.

President Clinton, apart from personal failings,
has never managed to have any significant social reforms passed by Congress
in his two terms of office. These very worthwhile reforms were always the
heart of his platform.

The principal role of an Australian President should be to safeguard the
constitution as well as the rights of the Australian people.

Subsidiary roles are purely ceremonial. Assuming we are not looking
for an expanded role for the President beyond that expressed, what person
of sufficient high esteem would allow themselves to be put forward as candidate
for election apart from a politician with the usual obligations that it
entails toward others?

Political campaigns COST money and, obligations invariably ensue.

4. Postscript 29th July,
2000 - From feedback I have received, both for and against my views - and thanks very much for that because it is certainly appeciated, some people seem to confuse my views as being "anti-British".

This is certainly not the case. My mother migrated from England on a troopship with her brother in 1919. My father's parents were Scot and Welsh respectively. I have cousins residing in the UK. My wife's antecedents were Irish and English.

My view is, "I am an Australian", I am proud of that. The majority of Australians were either born overseas or had either one or both parents born overseas, that does nothing to lessen our desire to be "independently Australian", nor is it a reflection upon our antecedents. -

SYDNEY PROTESTS AGAINST WAR

Sunday, 16th February, 2003

I attended a war protest rally in Sydney today and reported back to friends world wide through a newsgroup. Here's that report.